Have you noticed that right up to this hour the President’s campaign is not aimed to appeal to the center? Class warfare remains paramount in his strategy. He is sacrificing his likeability in the closing days in an effort to strengthen his appeal is to the far left. John Heilemann explained the strategy back in May when he wrote “Hope: The Sequel,” for the New York magazine
Stanley Kurtz puts it in simpler words,
He’s shooting for a “realignment.” Obama is trying to shape a new kind of electorate, creating a long-term Democratic majority that would allow him and his successors to stop catering to the center and finally govern decisively from the left.
Obama and his advisors never abandoned their quest to shape a permanent leftist majority, a coalition that would forever put an end to Clintonian triangulation and usher in unfettered leftist Obamaism instead. Obama’s frantic efforts to gin up the women’s vote and the youth vote aren’t only desperate attempts to secure his base. They flow from a deliberate decision not to fight for the center, but to build an independent majority on what is supposedly the “demographically ascendent” left.
Obama is going for broke, the whole magilla, Reno or bust, all or none and he is almost there. Look at how close the polls have remained. It’s a strategy guaranteed to lose some votes from the swing voters in the middle. With polls narrowing to the region of 47 to 49 percent for each candidate, Bill Clinton would appeal to the center to win the prize. Obama is not about to do that; it’s against his religion, metaphorically so to speak.
The President is counting on voter fraud, community organizing style, to pull him through with little ACORNs working quietly around the country and Somalis being bused in to Ohio to vote. The Democratic demolition team is threatening the very infrastructure of the American voting process. Don’t let that happen. Vote.
In the last six months the President has traveled to over 100 fund raisers but not once has he convened an official meeting of his jobs council. That’s Barack Obama.
Two possibilities for reasons immediately come to mind. First, raising money is such an all out priority that spending an hour or two improving the jobs picture is a sacrifice he doesn’t want to make; or second, he knows what the Council will advise him to do and he knows he won’t do it. Both are likely to be correct.
Obama’s animosity toward the business world is very clear. There is the statement in Dreams from My Father where he said his one and only job in a business firm was “like working behind enemy lines”. Then there is his promise to put the coal industry out of business and his assurances to ACORN organizers and labor unions that in healthcare ”single payer is the goal” That of course means there would be no more insurance companies. And as we watch Air Force One jet from fund raiser to fund raiser at our expense, let us not forget how he railed against the captains of industry who came to his beck and call on smaller jets paid for, not by us but by their own stockholders. Obama is not about follow the recommendations of advisors who tell him the way to create jobs is to create a favorable climate for private industry.
His record of job recovery coming out of a recession is the worst since the days of FDR in the 1930s. The only accomplishments he has going for him with independent voters are 1) the Navy Seals got Bin Laden on his watch and 2) the passage of Obamacare. The first had little to do with Obama’s planning and the second is unpopular and it’s a job killer. He can’t run on his record so he has chosen a combination of the Alinsky model of demolishing your opponent and the ACORN tactic of gaming the election process as his strategy for winning re-election. These are unsavory tactics but, unfortunately, the community organizer in Barack Obama excels at both.
O’Keefe does it again! You remember him. It was O’Keefe who exposed ACORN by going into several offices with a concealed movie camera seeking advice on how to avoid the law when engaging in illegal activity. Although manipulation of the election process was a primary tactic of the leading federation of community organizers known as ACORN, voter fraud was not the focus of O’Keefe’s expose.
This time O’Keefe is exposing the issue of voter fraud more directly by showing how easily it can be conducted, one could almost say encouraged. O’Keefe’s group combed New Hampshire newspaper obituary pages and gathered the names of the deceased. When they showed up at the polls they had no problem getting ballots to cast votes in the name of the dead. No voter ID was required. In fact ID was declined even when it was offered.
Now that’s not voter fraud, but does anyone really believe political groups are so honest voter fraud will not occur even when voting systems actually facilitate it?
There is no justifiable reason to oppose verification of eligibility to vote in order to cast a vote, none whatsoever. There is however, a reason. The reason is the belief that your party will benefit more from voter fraud than will the opposition party. An even stronger reason would be to take advantage of the opportunity for voter fraud as a tactic in your strategy for winning an election. The harder the fight against voter identification, the more one is inclined to think the reason is the latter, not the former.
“[V]oter fraud remains a significant component of the Democratic Party’s electoral strategy.”
Those bold words were written by John Hinderaker in a Power Line article titled Dayton Vetoes Voter ID Law. It is a strong statement to make, but how else can you explain the consistent opposition to voter ID programs by Democrats, and only by Democrats, in state after state?
Indiana Democrats opposed to tighter voter identification requirements took the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where they lost in a 6 to 3 vote in April 2008. The court rejected the argument that requiring reliable identification from voters would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
Deter the poor? Voter ID cards are free. In fact most people already have acceptable ID cards. Here is a typical list of what is generally accepted. Any one will do.
The photo ID of any employee of any department of the federal government.
Any photo ID of any employee of any municipal board, authority or other entity of any state.
Any photo ID issued to non-employees by any municipality, any state or by the federal government.
A valid Driver’s License, even if expired.
A special Voter ID Card issued without charge by the voter registrar’s office.
This list happens to be from the State of Georgia. But every bill proposed has included special provisions to meet the needs of the indigent and handicapped. The only ones disenfranchised are your dog or cat or names taken from gravestones. There simply is no honest reason to oppose the requirement of reliable identification in order to vote.